Our Man in Havana - YouTube Our Man in Havana Want to watch this again later? Sign in to add this video to a playlist. Need to report the video? Sign in to report inappropriate content. Rating is available when the video has been rented. This feature is not available right now. Please try again later. Published on May 6, 2014 Graham Greene wrote this witty comedy inspired by Cold War paranoia. Jim Wormald (Alec Guiness) is an Englishman selling vacuum cleaners in Cuba on the cusp of the revolution. Hawthorne (Noel Coward), a British intelligence agent, is looking for information on Cuban affairs and recruits Jim to act as a spy. Jim has no experience in espionage and no useful knowledge to pass along, but Hawthorne is willing to pay for his services, and since Jim's daughter Milly (Jo Morrow) has expensive tastes, he can use the money. To keep Hawthorne happy (and his paychecks coming in), he turns in reports on the Cuban revolution that are copied from public documents, "hires" additional agents who don't exist, and presents blueprints of secret weapons that are actually schematics of his carpet sweepers.

However, Hawthorne and associate "C" (Ralph Richardson) think that Jim is doing splendid work and encourage him to continue; meanwhile, Capt. Segura (Ernie Kovacs), the elegantly corrupt chief of police, has been fooled by Jim's charade into believing he's a real spy -- and has also become attracted to Milly. Our Man in Havana also features Burl Ives and Maureen O'Hara in supporting roles. Release date Our Man – in Havana? - The Catholic Thing Our Man – in Havana? Robert Royal Monday, February 15, 2016 Editor’s Note: America and the Church lost a great man this weekend when Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died in his sleep Saturday in Texas. Scalia was a friend of several writers on this site and his son, Fr. Paul Scalia, appears in these pages from time to time. We send our condolences to him and the whole Scalia family in the hope that they will find peace in the knowledge that he is now in the hands of the Divine Mercy, in which he so firmly believed. Requiem aeternam dona ei Domine.

– RR The meeting between Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis on Friday in Havana was a pivotal moment in relations between Western and Eastern Christianity. It’s also the culmination of decades-long efforts to get Europe to “breathe with both lungs,” as St. John Paul II said. And in several respects, it owes a great deal to particular qualities of Pope Francis, for both good and ill. Francis’s public persona gets much praise, and criticism (on this page, as elsewhere) from people who think he’s confusing and is putting crucial Catholic doctrines in jeopardy. Both charges are correct – sometimes – but there’s more to the story. He has a gift for bringing people together – yes, not always with the necessary clarity or caution. But in this instance, he mostly did very well. With one serious misstep, of which more below. The meeting probably would have been harder to arrange if the pope were a Western European. JPII, a Pole, knew the Slavic world well. Benedict XVI profoundly understood the theological differences between East and West. Both made overtures towards the Orthodox. But a Latin American pope made things less starkly East/West. It’s worth reading the Joint Declaration that was signed in Cuba.

It starts by strongly regretting millennium-old divisions within the Church, which Christ Himself prayed would be one, as He and the Father are one. And adopts a fraternal tone – something even factions within Catholicism and Orthodoxy don’t always use towards one another – seeking closer relations and common action. That’s a genuine religious advance, but it’s also a response to the public challenges all Christians face today: “Human civilization has entered into a period of epochal change. Our Christian conscience and our pastoral responsibility compel us not to remain passive in the face of challenges requiring a shared response.” First, in urgency (and the text) is persecution, martyrdom, and wholesale genocide of Christians, in the Middle East, Africa, etc. Many believe that was the primary motivation for the meeting. The declaration treads diplomatically on conflicts in Ukraine and Syria, where Russia and the West are at loggerheads, calling all parties to seek peace – which can be variously interpreted by the different actors. But it speaks frankly about abortion, euthanasia, threats to the traditional family, the environment, poverty, refugees, Europe’s need to return to its Christian roots.

And about encroachments on religious liberties, “when certain political forces, guided by an often very aggressive secularist ideology, seek to relegate them to the margins of public life.” Historic embrace Very true, and that’s why it’s puzzling that this document was signed in Havana. I’ve been to Cuba and don’t recognize it here: Our fraternal meeting has taken place in Cuba, at the crossroads of North and South, East and West. It is from this island, the symbol of the hopes of the “New World” and the dramatic events of the history of the twentieth century, that we address our words to all the peoples of Latin America and of the other continents. It is a source of joy that the Christian faith is growing here in a dynamic way. . . Cuba, the world’s “ crossroads”? “Symbol of hopes”? Dynamic Christian growth? To be frank, these are lies – and a scandal. We’re hearing that a large Russian Orthodox church will be built in Cuba though few orthodox live there. This is Potemkin-village stuff. For a half-century, Cuba has denied building permits to Catholics, Baptists, Evangelicals, and others.

It’s stubbornly Communist, one of those “aggressive secularist” ideologies pope and patriarch deplore. In addition to political repression, religious protesters like the Ladies in White are routinely jailed. Oswaldo Payá, the Catholic founder of the Christian Liberation Movement, was killed in a “car accident” just four years ago. He’s not the only one. Francis surely knows all this, yet went out of his way to praise Cuba, publicly telling Raul Castro Friday that “if it continues this way, Cuba will be the capital of unity.” Silly us. We thought that was Rome. It’s regrettable to have to bring up political ugliness in this otherwise historic religious context. But as Orwell once said: “In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics.’ All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia.” To make progress on religious persecution, we need truth – the whole truth. The Joint Declaration notes Christianity’s return to public life in Russia. But Russia’s longtime ally Cuba is another thing entirely. Why praise a Cold War dinosaur and religious persecutor in both the Joint Declaration and the event? Mr. Putin may have wanted that.

But why did Francis, ignoring plain fact, join in? ******** Speaking of fact, since we’re now in dialogue with the Orthodox, and Christianity is a historical religion, a little history is in order. The press covered this event as if it were the first contact between the Eastern and Western churches in a thousand years. Like most public discussions of Christianity, this, at best, blurs the truth. The Great Schism happened in 1054, of course, but the West still supported the East, notably in the Crusades, against Muslim encroachment. In the mid-fifteenth century, Moscow demanded a Metropolitan See – partly because Constantinople, under Ottoman threat, was seeking reunion with Rome. Constantinople fell in 1453, despite help from Venice. Thereafter, Moscow began to claim to be the “third” Rome. The Moscow Patriarchate dates from 1558, the year Elizabeth I became Queen of England. Russians make up 40 percent of the world’s Orthodox believers, but the Moscow Patriarch is not a pope. The closest thing to an Orthodox pope is the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (now Istanbul), but he has only a tiny flock.

Orthodoxy encompasses many competing – sometimes clashing – jurisdictions. Reunion with the Russian Orthodox remains a distant prospect, but this is a good start. Relations with other jurisdictions are probably even farther away. But let’s pray that, someday, somehow, the good begun here becomes a reality. © 2017 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. Latest Articles Robert Royal Before the Deluge - Monday, November 7, 2016 Comment on this column at: Twitter Howard Kainz Regarding the situation in the Middle East the Havana Joint Declaration strangely puts everything in the passive voice, as if this was a natural disaster, and avoids naming the perpetrators: “In many countries of the Middle East and North Africa whole families, villages and cities of our brothers and sisters in Christ are being completely exterminated. Their churches are being barbarously ravaged and looted, their sacred objects profaned, their monuments destroyed.

It is with pain that we call to mind the situation in Syria, Iraq and other countries of the Middle East, and the massive exodus of Christians.” givelifeachance2 From Reuters: “Under Putin, the ROC gets support from the state and powerful oligarchs allied to the Kremlin, while Moscow benefits from its public blessing. A recent poll showed 75 percent of Russians approve of the ROC and more than half value its close ties with the state.” From my own reading, it was the Soviet Union that TRAINED the terrorists who are now ravaging the world. Certainly, Russia saw fit to silence Litvinenko, permanently, who was advancing that thesis. The rumors of Communism’s death are greatly exaggerated. Romulus Putin is not a nice man. Neither was Constantine. They have in common that and much more, not least a sincere interest in protecting Christianity. Putin’s no communist; he’s an autocrat and patriot who wishes to see his country powerful and prosperous. If he wishes to see Russia assume world leadership from the feckless, post-Christian West — well, why should he not?

givelifeachance2 I am not taking “the West” off the hot seat – our CIA/OSS has many black ops to account for as well. As a matter of fact, I’m about to give up on the circus that has taken over the USA itself. But the reality is that Putin and Obama are two puppets being operated by the same oligarchic cartel and they have elaborate deceitful poses that they put on. Be not deceived about Putin and his Christian pose, about as artful as Obama’s. Michael DeLorme Were she still alive, I believe Lucy dos Santos—the longest survived of the three Fatima children—would agree. Russia was never properly consecrated to the Immaculate, and Russia has spread its errors to the diseased minds of Obama, Sanders and Hillary, for starters… Tom Williams Thank you Dr. Royal for an excellent and enlightening article. The meeting was more geopolitical than spiritual and hopefully beneficial to our persecuted brethren in the world most affected by terrorists as well as those of The Ukraine. As far as Rome being the centre of peace, that is to me, at this point in the history of The Church, has become anything like a centre of peace.

There is a war in process for control of The Vatican. Perhaps being in a new location might give enough shake up to start doing things the way The Lord would like to see things done. ForChristAlone I wonder about all these declarations of rapprochement between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. Don’t we recognize their sacraments as valid and the apostolic lineage as intact? Haven’t Catholics been told that they may receive Holy Communion in an Orthodox Church (despite the fact that this is not reciprocal on the part of the Orthodox)? As for the Vatican’s hype about Cuba: it, like many of the pronouncements emanating from this pontificate, are not taken all that seriously. I wonder if the holy father has had a conversation with the cardinal archbishop of Havana lately about how the Church in Cuba is faring these days. Paul Alcazar Unfortunately and sadly, the Archbishop of Havana has been in the tank with the Castro regime for decades. ForChristAlone A successor of the apostles. Could one imagine Christ having been “in the tank” with Pilate or Caesar? Then again, one has sometimes to decide if one is going to save one’s own life or risk losing it for Christ.

DE-173 / Code 19 /Vox Night I find it distressing that modern clerics and prelates are so unable to learn the lessons of history and avoid Church state entanglements; specifically how “Fidei Defensor” Henry Tudor’s supposed fidelity to the Church was a lamb before the lion of his libido. Repeat after me: Men of principle are rarely in power, and powerful men are almost never principled. Chris in Maryland Pope Francis seems to want to repeatedly advertise to all of us that he is attracted to “The Hammer and the Cycle.” Why would a prudent Catholic leader have himself photographed in Rome receiving an abominable gift: the corpus of Our Lord crucified on the Hammer and the Cycle? Pope Francis seems…at best… oblivious that such a gift is in one stroke profaning Our Saviour and the tens of millions murdered by the followers of Marxism.

Perhaps this failure to see is because the pope’s parents fled Mussolini’s Italy in the 1930’s, and did not suffer the ravages of facism and communism described by Eugenio Corti in his epic “The Red Horse.” It is disappointing, but somewhat understandable, when young people are at first attracted to communism and socialism. But it is a disaster when grown adults are so attracted. It seems to indicate that for such men all assumptions are anchored in the Age of Aquarius, and all history, including Church history, begins in 1968. Mom442 I once read a testimony of a young man who grew up in the Ukraine prior to the Red takeover. He had joined the Communists because he believed their rhetoric about helping the workers and the poor. He said he never understood their real intentions until he saw his comrades drag his own parents out of their home, steal their belongings, and force them onto a train headed for Siberia. Rick Wouldn’t it be glorious if Trump, Putin, Duda (Poland), Nikolic (Serbia), the rest of Europe, the Catholics, Orthodox, and Russian Orthodox all united, reclaimed ancient Christendom and put a stop to this head chopping, raping evil.

People gravitate towards strength. Many would convert. grump Kipling said it best: “East is East and West is West…” Bunky Why the gratuitous swipe at Mr. Putin? He is not a Communist any more – he is a Christian who supports the Church’s teaching a on life, marriage, family, and has rebuilt 25,000 churches in Russia. Alexander Solzhenitsyn praised him. The only people who want to keep the Cold War going are the NEOCONS. Quo Vadis Tell that to the dead in Ukraine . And the dead in Syria where his planes are bombing to support Assad. And who is flying those planes in and around US forces to antagonize them ? Putin a Christian just like Hitler. Romulus The troubles in Ukraine have nothing to do with communism or any cold war. Without prejudice to Ukrainian national sentiment, the area has for centuries lain on the margin of the Russian sphere of influence. Mutatis mutandis, one could say much the same of Cuba and the United States. As for Syria, Russia has always considered itself the strong protector of (mostly Orthodox) Christians in majority-muslim lands.

Certainly the US and other secular westerns countries have shown no interest whatever in extending such patronage; the recent Iraq war was initiated, and its aftermath administered (if that is the word) with reckless indifference to indigenous Christian welfare. If Assad, like Saddam Hussein before him, is willing to tolerate Christians unmolested, why should he be displaced? Diane Putin is a very dangerous and evil man. He has you drinking the cool-aide! Rick He may well be but he loves Russia, stands up for Russia, and defends the russian people. He is also fighting the muhammedens (remember the Beslan school massacre). I wish the U.S. had a leader like him. mw006 You have been drinking the Kool-Aid of the Western media. He is a conservative nationalist and a foreign policy realist, nothing less and nothing more. My wife grew up in the old Soviet Union and the country is vastly better and more free today under Putin and a bulwark against the militant secularism of the West. As for the situation in Ukraine, the Western media has been pathetically one-sided in its reporting, giving absolutely zero historical perspective to the role the West played in provoking the crisis.

I quote Natalia Solzhenitsyn, widow of Alexander Solzhenitsyn: “What I see in the Western press is prejudiced and emotional. It’s not just an anti-Putin point of view. It’s an anti-Russian point of view. Watching our television, however biased it might be, one can see talk shows where truly opposite arguments are made, whereas following the Western media one gets no such impression. What is worse, the facts that don’t fit the larger anti-Russia story are just ignored or toned down…the West has not lifted a finger to make Ukraine more prosperous but has just used it to get at Russia, to contain Russia.” Fr. Peter Morello, Ph.D. I agree with the premise of your argument. After the fall of the Soviet system under Gorbachev and the pro Western Yeltsin the Bush Administration tried to move NATO into Ukraine, Georgia, likely even Belarus obviously posing intimidation and a serious threat in an attempt to neutralize and weaken. The US had no politico historical sense or memory of the old Cordon Sanitaire that the former Soviet Union felt threatened by after WW I. It is abundantly clear that Putin assumed power to restore Russia’s territorial, defensive, and national integrity.

The Crimea was historically part of Russia who fought Turkey and their European allies who were attempting to impose Turkish control there. Eastern Ukraine also was traditionally Russian but was ceded by Russia to appease Ukraine who possessed sovereignty over Russian nuclear missile sites in order for Russia to retain control of those sites. We made a tragic error during the Bush Adm when we could have developed real cooperation and friendship with the new Russia under Yeltsin. dennis alber So many positive things the Pope has involved himself in for an example to the world. He is obviously not a politician. The emphasis in his Apostolic endeavors is led by the Holy Spirit. The message seems to be, for me, that all can, and must, become new, through forgiveness and mercy in a confused and fallen world. olhg1 In today’s reading he who “puts a stumbling block in front of the blind” breaks the Divine Law. Seems that ill-informed people are falling all over themselves because of the Holy Father’s (Yes, Holy Father) words and actions. IMO, the operative word here is “blind” and rather blaming the Pope for their confusion, they should look to themselves as causes for the turmoil.

dennis alber I wonder when Jesus was spreading his radical message to the blind and stumbling if those of power and influence considered him breaking Divine Law, and if so, did God give a hoot! EC321 Is appointing Daneels to the Synod a Godly action? Michael DeLorme Help me to understand this…The Pope, by his inconsistencies, is putting stumbling blocks in front of the already ill-informed, which can only increase their blindness; thus he “breaks the Divine Law.” Yet, instead of blaming the Pope for the stumbling blocks he puts in front of them, the blind should “look to themselves as causes for the turmoil”? What am I missing here? Deb Daily I too questioned the Cuban history of this meeting, thanks for speaking boldly about this because quite frankly I too am at a loss on the connection. However, since we are in strange times, I’m glad I found this website to keep my Catholic on. It’s daggers out here on whose to blame for all our woes. Irene Manning Because I am 78 and have lived through many popes, this is the first time in my life time that I feel there is something seriously wrong with many things that Pope Francis supports.

Irene Manning At 78, having lived through a great number of popes, this is the first time in my lifetime that I feel there is something seriously wrong with many of the things that Pope Francis supports. This is very worrisome. Dave Fladlien I hear you on that. I admit I’m a little vulnerable to depression, but — while I haven’t seen as much as you have — I’ve been through the anti-authority times of the 60’s and 70’s, the war/draft crisis surrounding Viet Nam, the over-reaction (on both sides) to Vatican II, and a raft of other stuff, and this is possibly the worst I’ve seen so far, at least as far as the Church is concerned. At best this Pope seems to be divisive, not reconciling, and confusing, not clarifying. Whether one agrees with him or disagrees (and I’m some of each), just reacting as a businessman and a manager, I’d have to say he isn’t leading effectively, isn’t bringing the opposing “sides” of his organization together, and isn’t developing strategies and policies that take us forward.

Calling one of the slavery capitals of the world — Cuba — anything but a land of abject poverty and slavery to a totalitarian regime, is in my view, irresponsible. A TCT article a couple days ago said we have to be respectful of the Pope even where we must disagree. I have no problem with that concept, but sometimes you just have to tell it like it is too. Let’s all pray for better times. It is worse than irresponsible; it is sinful. Dave “To be frank, these are lies — and a scandal.” When can we start saying that things are seriously amiss here, that the Pope appears to be a man of the Left, and that he appears to be a Manchurian candidate, too? Cuba as the capital of unity: just think of all the martyrs buried in anonymous graves or languishing still in unknown prison cells. And one would do well to consult the interview with the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, who himself was not consulted, to see the words of a hierarch who loves the Pope, who wants to be loyal to him, and who finds himself seriously challenged by the Pope’s actions.

TCT doesn’t publish links so I would encourage anyone to google His Beatitude Sviatoslav. Kathleen Rose Bamberger Didn’t Chesterton advise: “If a thing is worth doing, it’s worth doing badly”? Perhaps Cuba is the “closest” Pope Francis(in the urgency of the Jubilee of Mercy) can get right NOW to having a truly ecumenical and truly catholic reunion in Russia …. ? Bobo Fett Pyongyang must not have been available. Fr. Peter Morello, Ph.D. Some of our respondents have such great humor that I have to laugh. But what you imply is so unfortunately true. ndtnpaul As Fr. Hunwick pointed out, Metropolitan Isidore of Kiev, Moscow, and “all the Rus” was at the Council of Ferrara-Florence. It is just about inevitable that he met Pope Eugene IV there. So, the news is wrong on that front as well. Dr. Royal is confusing the elevation of the diocese of Kiev-Moscow to a metropolitan archdiocese (the metropolitans have apparently sat there since 1322) with its further elevation to a Patriarchy, which is what occurred in 1589. Fr.

Peter Morello, Ph.D. Watched Pope Francis live yesterday on EWTN visiting the Mexico City oncology clinic for children and was deeply moved as he went to each child in the wards and the instance of a little girl who sang the Ave Maria after a few words with her. Today he visited the mostly indigenous Mex state Chiapas had his confession heard and heard those of others. This is the beautiful side of Francis that compliments, or perhaps seems to present an anomaly in “Our man in Havana”. I saw the old film in which Graham Green lampooned the Brit Secr Svc the “Man” played by Alec Guiness. There is a close analogy to Guinness’ buffoonery and that of Francis proclaiming Havana as the new center of progress and unity, or better said progressive unity sans Rome. Your article admits the ambivalence we have regarding Francis, is he the new peacemaker or a leader promoting an obvious drift to the Left. Diane He always sows confusion, no matter what he does or where he goes. We just don’t know at this time. His exhortation in March might reveal the man and what he believes.

I pray that it will be that no Doctrines will change or how he can pretend that they are something they are not. Just Black and White, period. Just as we have always seen them. Dave Fladlien I think it is no secret that I definitely disapprove of Francis’ leftist leanings, especially on matters of economy and finance. But, frankly — Nothing is black and white. God simply didn’t make His creation that way. I know it is really unpopular on this site when I say this, but it is a fact. There are exceptions throughout creation. In general, people do sense that, and they’ll handle it in a pagan, hedonistic, socialistic way unless we Christians show them the *right* way. On that, if on nothing else (and there may be nothing else), I do support Pope Francis. There is a huge difference between having eternal values, and having a rigid “no exceptions” *application* of those doctrines. The two are not the same thing. The Church needs to start teaching how to handle exceptional situations, rather than insisting they don’t exist when they do. Everyone wants it to be simple. But it isn’t.

Doing the will of God is the most important thing on earth, so is it surprising that it is complex and difficult? No matter how much I dislike this Pope, I have to admit there is a reason why the Holy Spirit chose him. Maybe that reason is because Francis — with all his seemingly apparent shortcomings — is willing to confront the fact that it isn’t all black and white. GL29 The Holy Spirit does not choose the Pope. Dave Fladlien If you mean in the sense that we have free will, that we aren’t robots, then yes, I agree with you. But at the same time (it isn’t digital), I do think He keeps a pretty close track on what goes on, and gives His inspiration and guidance to the team (the conclave) that elects the Pope. I would be very hesitant in any particular case to say “This wasn’t the Pope the Holy Spirit wanted.” It may be that the Pope ends up not being true to the calling the Holy Spirit gave him, or just did a lousy job, but I would be slow to grant that the Pope wasn’t the choice of the Holy Spirit, even where — as in this case — I don’t have much liking for the person chosen.

EC321 Cardinals choose the Pope. They can work with the Spirit or not. It is not theologically true to say the HS chooses any pope. Brad Miner Then Cardinal Ratzinger confirmed this in a 1997 interview on German TV, when asked if the Spirit “chooses” the pope: “I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope. … I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined. There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!” Dave Fladlien OK, well, I learn something all the time on TCT. That’s one of the reasons I read it. Thanks for the clarification, Brad. Fr. Peter Morello, Ph.D. As usual Benedict XVI gave very sound counsel on this highly debatable issue. Thanks.

ForChristAlone Perhaps the reason why the Holy Spirit chose Francis is so that the sensus fidelium would be set in motion…that it would awaken the laity from years of desuetude. Patrick J. Sheahan My hope is that somebody recorded the conversations between Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis after Francis became our new pope. Maybe Benedict will share them in his final writings before he dies. I can’t imagine Benedict told Francis things are black and white in the Church. Actually he probably told him things were rather messy and he was ready to resign because of it. Benedict’s colleagues in Germany and Austria were off to the left somewhere. The Vatican bank was corrupt. The clerical sexual abuse scandal wasn’t exactly going away. Radical Islam was a force in the world and Christians were being persecuted and killed in countries where Islam ruled. And in the West secularism was the new religion and same sex marriage was being accepted as the law and abortion was killing millions of babies each year. So the Holy Spirit whispers to Benedict “I think the solution to what ails the Church is to elect a Jesuit from Argentina as the next pope.

He won’t be afraid to confront the problems and ask the tough questions.” Benedict probably told the Holy Spirit “you have a great sense of humour but this Jesuit will need your guidance and your wisdom.” Perhaps we as Catholics need to trust that the Holy Spirit is in charge and is the guiding force behind this Pope who seems to challenge us in many ways. I pray we will be open to the Spirit throughout this Lenten season and ask for His mercy when we doubt His wisdom. Michael DeLorme “…the Holy Spirit is in charge” in each of us, only to the extent that we allow Him to be. In Francis, it seems, He is in charge only intermittently (as I’m sure He is in my own case, at best). All things “work” for the good, of course; but that doesn’t mean “it’s all good” as the phrase has it. We can, in specifics, thwart the Spirit’s intentions. Veritas I pray, and hope, that Francis’ gestures toward Cuba, and other such rogues, ends like the story of Zacchaeus. The crowd of us grumble, but the Mercy of God calls to repentance, and a changing of heart, those who experience it.

Much of what Francis says in public seems more a hope and a prayer than simply a statement of “fact” Rayarena I’m not going to mince words, its horrible that the pope chose Cuba as the meeting place with Patriarch Kirill. He continues to give the totalitarian island a patina of legitimacy that it does not deserve, but, after all, this historic meeting would be the natural continuation of Francis’s earlier visit trip to Cuba where he did not find time in his busy agenda to meet with the dissidents. He did, however, find time to meet with fidel castro and his family even though fidel is officially now a retired citizen like any other Cuban citizen. Perhaps one can best understand Francis’s mindset by a singular event while on his trip to Cuba: dissidents were arrested, thrown to the grown, beaten and dragged off before his very eyes and he did absolutely NOTHING to come to their aid. In fact, after the trip, the Vatican never tried to intercede on their behalf while they languished in jail.

The Cuban Ladies in White, a peaceful group of dissenters who walk to church on Sunday’s each holding a gradiola, where they pray for their jailed loved ones and for democracy in Cuba have been dragged out of churches by Cuban police and the Vatican has done nothing. One would think that Francis would empathize with these brave ladies, since they bring to mind Argentina’s Mothers of la Plaza de Mayo, but, alas, he does not make the connection. Could it be that the Mother’s were fighting against a right winged dictatorship, while the Ladies are fighting against a “left” wing one? Alas, I believe that the pope like many Latin Americans of his generation harbors pro-Castro sympathies. It’s lamentable that “God’s Vicar” on earth would behave this way. Christ [whom the pope is supposed to mimic] would definitely be less tolerant of Cuba’s repressive nomenclature, in fact, he would likely be as confrontational with them as he was with the Pharisees about whom he never minced words. Fr. Peter Morello, Ph.D.

Rayarena I believe you’re correct about your assessment of Pope Francis that “he harbors pro-Castro sympathies.” There was a time in Argentina during the military junta 1973-82 that he considered himself overly rigid, dogmatic, and several Jesuit priests persecuted and arrested felt betrayed by him. I believe it was during that time he was elected provincial of the Jesuit order in Arg and before he was appointed Archbishop. He was considered by some as indecisive and did not at all defend those several Jesuits imprisoned and tortured during the Limpieza, the Junta’s term for cleansing society of subversive elements. The Jesuits who were proponents for social justice perhaps assoc with Liberation Theology as said felt quite betrayed by Bergoglio. He later admits in his biography that he had a change of heart and it seems this is when he drifted toward a leftist position both theologically and politically. Apparently he seems this would atone for his sins including betrayal. Now we are paying for his ‘born again’ leftist policies that ironically leave many of us who hold to the truth of the faith and seek justice betrayed.

Manuel Tellechea On his first trip to Cuba, Pope Francis had not one but two meetings with dictator emeritus Fidel Castro; the second, which took place in “his” home, included his wife, children and grandchildren, all of whom asked and received the papal blessing. The pope could not, however, spare one minute to meet with Cuba’s dissidents and political prisoners. That would have given offense to his hosts and the pope would never be so rude. The meek may inherit the earth some day but until that happens the “people’s pope” will pay court to the Pharisees and serve as their chaplain, bringing aid and comfort to the enemies of Christ while turning his back on his people. Immediately after visiting the Castro clan and rendering unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, Francis attended a vespers celebration at the Cathedral of Havana, where he addressed for the first time Cuba’s priests, nuns and seminarians. He advised them to value their poverty, which is Christ’s greatest gift to mankind. “Material wealth,” he said, “impoverishes because it deprives us of the only wealth worth having” — presumably the immaterial (or spiritual) kind.

He called poverty “the wall and the mother of consecrated life” because like a mother it fosters greater trust in God and acts as a wall against worldliness. Any man who has not lived a cloistered life knows that the poor are not exempt from materialism or worldliness. If anything, poverty makes one even more keenly aware of the benefits derived from wealth and anxious to share in them. The “spirituality of poverty” as a meme may appeal to the wealthy, but not enough for them ever to embrace it. It can have no charms for the poor who do not idealize poverty because they actually know something about it, as apposed to dictators and popes. Like the slave masters of old, they extol a culture of poverty but would not cast off their wealth to share in its supposed blessings. It is not given to every man to be wealthy, but any man who desires to be poor can be poor. The pope railed against “excessive consumption” in a country where nothing is consumed in excess thanks to an economic model which for 56 years and counting has kept the Cuban people on the edge of starvation (and sometimes over the edge) as a means of societal control.

The Castros, like the Church, also regard poverty as a “mother” and a “wall” which fosters greater dependence on the State and dampens materialism. They also feign poverty as does the pope and blame it on the economic system that produces the least poverty while endorsing the economic system that produces the most poverty. But, of course, that is to be expected since poverty is a positive good (for others): “Our holy mother Church is poor. God wishes Her to be poor, as he wanted our Holy Mother Mary to be poor. Love poverty as you would love a mother.” And, by implication, be grateful to those who keep you poor and thus assure you the Kingdom of Heaven. The pope does not take a vow of poverty, as do other religious. He is the richest of the rich: so rich that he is above money. The pope receives no salary and never carries money on his person (neither does the queen of England); but, as a benefactor once observed of Gandhi, it takes a great deal of money to keep him “poor.” Francis’ “poverty” is more symbolic than real.

In fact, the pope presides over the world’s largest real estate holdings and controls an art collection worth a trillion dollars. This is the so-called “patrimony” of the Church, which the pope is nonetheless free to do with as he pleases. 264 successive popes have added to that hoard, not one has ever willingly disbursed any part of it. It is the ne plus ultra of hypocrisy for the pope to preach the gospel of poverty in a country and among a people where abject poverty has been imposed for 56 years by the ruling kleptocracy. If hunger refines the spirit, then the Cuban people are all spirit by now. This well-fed pope did his penance in Cuba’s tropical heat by wearing layers of petticoats and capes. But these, after all, are no hair shirt and will soon be cast off in the privacy of the papal suite. The sliminess of his hypocritical notions, which clings to him like a second skin, cannot be as easily shed. Fr. Peter Morello, Ph.D. I don’t agree with your Marxist critique of the papacy and its wealth. Remember that was the criticism of Judas.

If you have a better idea of how to rule the Church and the papacy as the binding force of unity you should have given that. Criticism without a recommendation doesn’t tell us anything who already may agree with you regarding excess. I do lean in agreement however with some of your criticisms of our Pontiff and the Cuba charade. Your words “the Pope who pays court to pharisees as their chaplain” reminds me of Lampedusa’s The Leopard and the Sicilian Prince Don Fabrizio who drags the pastor around for immediate confessions after he visits brothels to ensure salvation. What assurance do you think the Pope is seeking? Is it popularity with despots or an opening to evangelize or perhaps both? Manuel Tellechea Father Morello: So you don’t agree with my “Marxist critique of the papacy and its wealth!” This critique is far older than Marxism. Moreover, as a lifelong anti-Communist, I regard Pope Francis as a theoretical Marxist and advocate of liberation theology (the unholy fusion of Marxism and Catholicism).

But let me not use this space to magnify our differences on that score, but to prove that our common skepticism of the pope’s conduct in Cuba is amply justified. On the flight from Santiago de Cuba to Washington, DC, Pope Francis was asked by a reporter from CNN whether he would ever meet with Cubans persecuted by the Castro regime. A reporter from Spain’s El País characterized the pope as “discomfited” by the question and his answer as “evasive.” In fact, his answer is highly revealing though hardly unexpected given his conduct in Cuba: a coward’s verbal self-portrait and a very badly executed one. The journalists on the plane were shocked by Francis’ answer because he is known for his ability to turn any critical question to his advantage. Here, however, he showed no such finesse, but reinforced the perception that “he had been very deferential to the regime of the brothers Castro while ignoring, at the same time, the repression unleashed against Cuban dissidents.” Having abandoned the sheep to tend to the wolf on his first trip to Cuba, the pope addressed the question from the perspective of whether a future “encounter and dialogue” with Cuban dissidents was contemplated.

He had sponsored and extolled in the highest terms the “encounter and dialogue” between the worst men in Cuba and their counterparts in the U.S. Would he agree to meet with the bravest and noblest of Cuba’s sons and daughters who represent the entire dignity of the Cuban people? Rosa Flores, CNN: Good afternoon, Holy Father. I am Rosa Flores of CNN. We understand that more than 50 dissidents were arrested outside the nunciature [in Havana] as they were trying to have a meeting with you. First, would you like to have a meeting with the dissidents, and if you had that meeting, what would you say? Francis: “Look, I have no news that that ever happened. I can’t say yes, no I can’t. I don’t know. Would I meet directly with them? I just don’t know. Would I like to? What would be the result? These are questions to be answered in the future. I like to meet all kinds of people. I consider, first of all, that all people are children of God and have the right [to meet me]. And, secondly, that meeting other people is always rewarding.

As to what may lie in the future, I don’t have an answer.” The pope’s sentences are halting and clipped, as if he were afraid of developing his thoughts fully because his thoughts frighten even him. He asks himself questions aloud which he then declines to answer [e.g. “Would I like to (meet them)?” and “What would be the result?”] The only thing that he appears sure of is that he shouldn’t answer the question. He doesn’t explain why but proceeds to suggest that he should meet with them “because they are God’s children and have the right [to meet me].” Still, Francis is non-committal: is it necessary or desirable that he should meet “directly” with them? There is a Noli me tangere [Don’t touch me] aspect to his reaction. Francis postpones his answer to an open-ended futurity. In a more literal translation, his answer is: “your question is futuristic” and therefore does not conform to present reality (like landing a man on Mars or ordaining women as priests). The pope continued: “If you want me to speak more about the dissidents, you can ask me something more concrete.

For the nunciature, first, it was very clear that I was not going to give audiences because not only the dissidents asked for audiences, but also audiences [were requested] from other sectors, including from the chief of state. And, no, I am on a visit to a nation, and just that. I know that I hadn’t planned any audience with the dissidents or the others.” The pope asks for “concrete questions” when he seems incapable of giving a concrete answer. He does reveal for the first time that it was never his intention to meet with Cuba’s dissidents. Apparently, he doesn’t want anyone to assume that he was constrained from doing so by his hosts, which, incidentally, is exactly what happened. Half a dozen of Cuba’s most prominent dissidents were invited to a meet and greet at the nuncio’s palace in Havana, but were arrested by the regime on their way there. Perhaps all that Francis intended to do was wave at them from his window, but he was not even given the opportunity to do that. In fact, the Vatican was obliged to submit lists of all Cubans who had been invited to attend the pope’s masses in Cuba. The regime excluded by intimidation or force all whom it deemed unacceptable.

To acknowledge that every detail of his trip to Cuba was micromanaged by Castro’s henchmen would have reflected badly on him and his hosts. Francis would rather seem despicable by denying any intention to meet with the dissidents than by admitting the fact that he was a willing stooge for the regime. Since he actually did grant audiences to both Raúl and Fidel Castro, it is mendacious for him to suggest that he didn’t meet with the dissidents because he chose not to give an audience even to the chief of state! Even if we take him at his word, we must ask why he granted no audiences in Cuba but dozens of audiences in the U.S. Francis: “And, secondly, from the nunciature, some people made some calls to some people who are in these groups of dissidents, where the responsibility was given to the nuncio to call them and tell them that I would greet them with pleasure outside the cathedral for the meeting with the consecrated [religious]. I would greet them when I was there, no? That did exist. Now, as no one identified themselves in their greetings, I don’t know if they were there. I said hello to the sick who were in wheelchairs.

… Oops, I’m speaking Spanish. I greeted those who were in wheelchairs, but no one identified themselves as dissidents; but from the nunciature calls were made by some for a quick greeting.” Ah, the poor pope! He was willing, after all, to greet the dissidents — and “with pleasure.” too —outside the doors of the Cathedral but they did not introduce themselves to him. It does not occur to the pope that the dissidents had already been arrested before he arrived at the Cathedral, or that, if any had managed to get beyond the police barricades, they would have been arrested on the spot before they had the chance to introduce themselves to him as dissidents (Castro’s goons are aware of who they are and do not require introductions). The pope certainly would not have intervened on their behalf. Francis had that opportunity when dissidents were arrested in front of the popemobile after his first mass and he chose to look the other way (literally). María Flores of CNN then asked the pope a follow-up question: What would you tell the dissidents if you had the opportunity to meet with them?

Refusing to be baited into saying anything that could be construed as compassionate, humane or Christian, Pope Francis replied: “Oh, my daughter, I don’t know what I would say. (laughs) I would wish everyone well, but what one says comes in that moment and … You’ve got the Nobel Prize for being a reader of the future, eh?” (laughs) Fr. Peter Morello, Ph.D. Manuel I do much appreciate your educating me of the experience of Cuban dissidents and the Pope’s disturbing even less than heroic witness to justice. I assume it relates to your, I believe, Cuban heritage. I apologize for calling you a Marxist yet hold to my view that art works, beautiful buildings, historical treasures gifts from Sultans and so forth are part of the Church’s historical heritage. Sure the Vatican can sell such and give to the poor but that will not make a dent in the world’s poverty. More important to me is your account of our Pontiff’s behavior which if you search out my comments on this website you’ll find I have strong reservations regarding him and the overall desultory effect he is having on the Church. I see exactly what you see in an apparent effort to gain acclaim, popularity.

But for what purpose? Is it to cover the damage that is taking place in the Church, confusion, ambivalence, anguish, disappointment with his moral leadership. He states he will not change doctrine then does and says things that suggest we can differ in practice leading many to ignore Christ’s teaching. To me he is duplicitous. On the one hand he does beautiful things like his visit to the Mex City children’s oncology clinic and then we have what you give account of. I’ve said elsewhere on this site that the Pontiff speaks from both sides of his mouth. In the account you give he apparently couldn’t fake an answer when questioned directly by Maria Flores. I agree it shows more than ambivalence. It reveals a conscious unwillingness to commit himself to justice on a real world stage when it counts. He can kiss a thousand babies in public but for myself and others who are deeply concerned with this pontificate it does not cover his perfidy. I hope you continue to comment on this site.

Question: Who wrote "Our Man in Havana"?
Answer: Graham Greene